Sunday Discussion Group – The Carpetbagger Report

I propose an amendment forbidding any member of the Bush Family from holding public office ever again.

1. That the decision to declare war be taken out of the hands of Congress and made into a referendum, with war being declared only if 2/3rds of citizens support it. Our forces may defend themselves if attacked, but may not initiate hostilities or invade without this authorization. Other modifications might include: Congress may never give the President a “blank check” (authorization for war must be very specific).

The only exception to this amendment would be if the initial strike by the enemy damaged American infrastructure to the point where a referendum was no longer feasible.

Anyway, I’d consider any amendment that made an elective war so damn difficult to start (without it being obvious the President exceeded his authority to a treasonable degree) that it’d be unworthwhile.

2. That districting for Congressional seats be made by the Census Bureau or other independent (read: nonpartisan) organization.

I want an amendment explicitly stating that eminent domain cannot be used to transfer land from one private party to another private party.

And I am in complete support of Liam J’s amendment.

I want an admendment that affects the way laws are enacted. No more hiding things in bills. Only allow admendments to bills that have an impact on the bill itself. This would add sunshine to the bill making process. When the sun shines, hidden laws disappear.

I want an admendment that defines what a government official can determine to be classified information. Basically what exists now is left to the descretion of the people in charge. If the information helps their cause then it is released. If the information hurts their cause it is redacted.

The current roster of admendents is OK by my standards witht he exception of term limits. Let the people vote.

The only amendment that would get my enthusiastic backing is an effort to give the District of Columbia voting rights.

It seems bizarre to those who haven’t heard about it, but there are 600,000 citizens in the nation’s capital, but they are the only Americans who don’t have representatives in either chamber of Congress. In fact, these 600,000, the majority of whom are African American, are the only people in the country who pay federal taxes but have literally no voice as to how their money is spent. The phrase “taxation without representation” was made for just such a situation.

Republicans don’t want to reconcile the problem, in large part because they assume DC residents would vote for Dems. But if there were 600,000 Texans or Floridians who, by constitutional quirk, were denied a voice in Congress, it’d be corrected immediately.

I’m usually hesitant about changing constitutional stone, but this is a problem in need of a constitutional remedy.

Carpetbagger-Great choice. The DC citizens have for too long been denied a voice in our political affairs.

The idea above about an admendment restricting add-ons to congressional bills to be germane to the specific bill would go a long way to eliminate (1)excessive pork-barreling; and (2)reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington.

Minnesota actually has such a restriction on amendments. Recently the state Supreme Court struck down a “must issue” gun permit and concealed carry law because it was attached to a non-related bill. So these types of restrictions can have teeth.

Yes, it has become clear that we need more specifics around the ability of the President to put troops into combat without a clear declaration of war.

“But if there were 600,000 Texans or Floridians who, by constitutional quirk, were denied a voice in Congress, it’d be corrected immediately.”

Not to mention entire states like Alaska, North Dakota, and Vermont, who have populations approximately equal to D.C.

Or Wyoming, which has LESS (

(Sorry, I boo-booed on the previous post. Here’s the rest of it.)

. . . or Wyoming, which has LESS (under 500,000, according to the 2000 census). You think if Dick Cheney were from D.C. instead of Wyoming, he’d support such an amendment?

I support an ammendment that would require the President,VP, blah,blah,blah, and all members of Congress to work in one of Tom Delay’s sweatshops
in Saipan for one month every year. They would
also be required to room and board with the
poor slaves that are stuck there. They would have
to pay for said room and board out of the wages they earn there. For that one month, they would have
to live on what they earned there.

I second or third Liam J’s motion.

I like Mr. Flipple’s referendum for war idea. Although I’d have it overridden when we’ve suffered a first strike.

There are so many possibilities….

My most important one would be to eliminate age restrictions on voting. All American citizens, whatever their age, would be allowed to vote. Young people could hardly do worse than adults. And learning good researching and voting habits would be encouraged during their school years. Most importantly, politicians would have to address issues of concern to their age group, which would bring about great justice in this society for young people.

I really don’t want to see a President Schwarzenegger, but there’s been talk about making immigrants eligible to run for president. Since we’re a nation of immigrants, that strikes me as a reasonable idea.

This might be a little off-topic, but isn’t it interesting that conservatives are far more interested in constitutional amendments that liberals? Flag-burning, gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, balanced budget … it’s a pretty long list. What has the left seriously pushed? The ERA?

I mention this because conservatives don’t seem interested in conserving anything.

Ditto to Liam J but we’d better hurry. Another pod is ripening. Another Bush is blooming.

I don’t know if a whole amendment would be required or just a modification of an existing amendment, (if it works that way), but I think a nationally consistent and verifiable method of counting votes should be mandated. The spasmodic lurch toward electronic voting after 2000 was ill researched and implemented with little public scrutiny.

I also would be in favor of mandatory voting in general. But the veracity issue would have to be firmed up first. I get the impression that voting procedures have become subject to a benefit/hassle ratio. Voting is what democracy is all about. Compromise should be out of the question. If we can put a man on the moon…………

COMPLETE ELECTION OVERHAUL. Get rid of the Electoral College. Give every citizen (including DC people) a vote, with majority electing. Have voting districts of all kinds established by the Census Bureau. Felons who have served their terms are able to vote. US Office of Vital Statistics removes the dead from voting rolls. Election moved to the the first weekend in November. No exit poll results released to anyone until the last polling place closes.

Gary,
You’re sure right, though I’ve noticed that Republican-inspired amendments tend to regulate personal behavior & be essentially redundant with criminal law and religious morality. What’s so dangerous about amendments like the gay marriage bit is that it means the Federal government has a right to tell us who we can or cannot marry–a clear infringement on individual liberty and not a protection against government intrusion into our lives. Governments often do intrude anyway, I know, but it is at least the prerogative of the individual state or locality rather than the Feds. Anyway, if the Feds can do that, what can they not do?

Amendments to the Constitution, in my opinion, should clarify governance issues when it becomes clear that some procedural aspect of the earlier draft of the Constitution is clearly being abused or is no longer working. Like declaring war, for example. It also should clarify as explicitly as possible the limits of the government to intrude on private life.

The U.S. Sentate shall be apportioned as follows: the seventeen least populated States shall eacb have one Senator; the sixteen more populated States shall each have two Senators; and the seventeen most populated States shall each have three Senators.

An observation on the 22nd amendment. If the President, the V.P and the party have worked together and created a warm and fuzzy feeling about their policies and methods, then continuity is quite feasible beyond 8 years without keeping the same president.

That would indicate more public good will toward maintaining a plan/direction for the country rather than long term coronations.

How about this one:

The giving of any thing of value, other than services, by any individual or group of individuals, to any candidate for federal, state, or local political office is not speech, and is prohibited; and Congress and the several states shall be empowered to enact such legislation, both civil and criminal, necessary to both enforce this amendment, and to finance federal, state, and local political campaigns from public treasuries.

Paul

Paul,
Damn. You win the laurels on this thread!

The only thing I would delete is the reference to contributions not being speech. Why? Because if the Feds can say what 1 piece of speech is, then they have a right to a say on the other 19 pieces.

Here’s one I have taken from others:

In the game of baseball, there shall be no DH.

Carpetbagger,

The DC voting rights issue is huge, although I think if DC got statehood, we’d solve that problem!

I would like to see an amendment that prevented states from disenfranchising felons. I’d like to see all prisoners with the right to vote, but I’d settle for letting all citizens–even those on parole–be allowed to vote.

As several others have mentioned above I think that not allowing add ons to congressional bills would be my favorite. And require legislators to actually read the bills before they vote on them. I was appalled to hear of congressmen that said they didn’t read the Patriot Act before voting on it, that goes along the same lines as buying a used car from Tom Delay without ever driving it. We could even give the ammendment a nice catchy name. How about the Clean House ammendment?

I doubt such an ammendment would get much support from Democrats, and the Republicans would never go for it, but this would do more to make our reps accountable than anything that I can think of.

To those of you that have mentioned the disenfranchisement of felons, I live in a state where felons have their voting rights restored after completing their obligation to the state. Believe me, after losing mine for 5 years and then getting them back I haven’t missed an election for 3 years. You never know what you have until you lose it, I’m grateful for one of those rare opportunities of a second chance.

Presidents would be elected for one five year term

Presidential elections would be stand alone elections-no congressional elections or referenda on the ballot

Presidential elections would be federalized(no more electoral college) and overseen by non partisan officials. Any attempt by officials or private citizens to rig a presidential election would be considered treason.

1. Voting rights for DC
2. Popular election of the president and vice president
3. A line-item veto for the president (sorry, this is the fiscal conservative in me talking)
4. Allowing naturalized citizens to run for president
5. Getting legislatures out of the redistricting business (at least at the congressional level)

I’m up for modifications to the redistricting process.

Each state shall reapportion Congressional representation only once every ten years following the compilaton of the most recent Census data.

Reapportionment shall be placed in the hands of non-partisan independent commissions which will review Census data and draw district lines without regard to religious, ethnic, racial or other distinctions. These lines shall be drawn as much as possible in accordance with geometric grids, and may not extend for hundreds of miles solely for the purpose of capturing specific groups as defined in sentence one.

Wow, there are some great ideas here! Reapportionment of senators (Douglas Scott’s contribution) is terrific, as are many others. One of the most thought-provoking threads in a long time.
I’d love to add my own suggestions, since I wrote a novel with a sweeping amendment being the main thrust of the book. Unfortunately revealing it here would spoil it for someone who’s reading it right nowâ€”I just emailed the novel to Carpetbagger himself a couple weeks ago.

Other than giving voting rights to the District of Columbia, the only amendment I would suggest is to require all members of government be honest, thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate, selfless, courageous and possessed of the highest possible integrity. I know there’s about as much chance of this happening as my being appointed King of Siam but it’s my dadgum amendment and I’m sticking to it.

I agree with all of the voting ideas, and I’d expand election ‘day’ to a full week. I don’t understand the hurry to get it done in a single day.

Disband the winner take all format for each state in the electoral college. Winner of each congressional district gets one electoral vote and a majority is not required to win any single district. Electoral votes reduced to 438 with no electoral votes for senators. President must win majority of electoral votes or else there is a runoff with top two.

There shall be no discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. ALL laws, specifically including laws relating to marriage, shall be gender-neutral.

I once heard that a scholar of some note believed that the Constitution should be amended to permit voting by the great apes because they are so genetically similar to humans? Could this be taken seriously, and does anyone know where this was proposed?

I once heard that a scholar of some note believed that the Constitution should be amended to permit voting by the great apes because they are so genetically similar to humans? Could this be taken seriously, and does anyone know where this was proposed

Well, jackyl, you raise an ~~odd~~ interesting point. I’m not sure how seriously I’d take it, but I am interested in how, exactly, the primates might vote if they were given the chance.

On the one hand they’re probably concerned with the fate of rainforests (lean Dem), on the other hand they may be easily persuaded with simple messages with pretty pictures (lean GOP). The debate rages on…

This is more in the nature of what I view as a
fundamental flaw in the Constitution itself. I don’t
think it can be remedied by an amendment, and perhaps
no one would agree with me in the first place.

But I think there should be established an automatic
judicial review of any law that comes out of
the legislature vis a vis its Constitutionality. The
process by which bad legislation is overturned is long
and tortuous, and always indirect – the Supreme Court
rules on specific cases, not on legislation itself.
To make matters even worse, the Court sits back and
decides which cases they wish to review. It makes no
sense to me.

So, for example, if the legislature overrides the
First Amendment, it becomes the law of the land,
until a case is brought forward. If no one does
this, our Constitution is effectively amended without
due process.

Can’t happen? Happens all the time. Look at the
“under God” and “In God we Trust” coming from the
mid 1950s. Clear violations of the establishment
clause of the First Amendment. So violative, in
fact, that they don’t even require the Fourteenth
Amendment, and subsequent Supreme Court
“incorporation” rulings, to nullify them – they
were acts of the United States Congress.

The Constitution Restoration Act is a current
example. As I read it, it’s a prima facie violation
of Article III, Section 2, but if it passes, it
becomes law, until someone brings a case against
it, and if the Supreme Court ultimately decides it’s
too lazy to review it, it stands permanently.

Something wrong here. And legislators know it.
That’s why they pass these laws.

One more that I forgot. It’s a big one. I’d ban the death penalty.

If DC residents aren’t giving representation they should be at least be allowed to strike other citizens’ representatives with a stick (no thicker than an average human thumb) when so inclined…

I don’t mind lifting the native born requirement. Nor do I mind lifting the term limits on Presidents.

In terms of actually getting better government, I think that taking redistricting out of the hands of politicians, as mentioned above, would be a huge step.

Of course, seeing ‘Duke’ convicted and hung for treason (what else would one call selling your position of authority regarding national security?) might, at least temporarily, have the same effect on Congress that Balco has had on baseball.

-jjf

As Dr. Johnny Fever from WKRP would suggest, free coffee in the office should be a constitutional amendment.

Changes to the Constitution should only be made to correct or update the basic structure of our system of government.

I’d add one that Frank Zappa proposed back in 1988: require that, in order to pass a law, Congress must first *repeal* a different law. Thus, the sum total of laws will cease to grow exponentially such that only rocket scientists can figure it out. I also wish there was some way to stop the exponential growth of case law, but I’m not sure if there’s any practical way to accomplish it.

I’ll also second the comment above about removing the ability to hide things inside bills, which is actually might be a similar enough change to be combined into one amendment ;-).

I like the war-referendum too, and DC voting rights, and explicit addition of a right to privacy. Good ideas that I’d vote for if asked.

I think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of any of these actually even being drafted, let alone passed, but, oh well, ya gotta dream a little.

No one mentioned balanced budget! That’s the one I’d go door-to-door for. Let’s take care of the basics first.

A close second on my list would be redistricting and allowing at least 3 or 4 days for each presidential or governor election.

When Congress declares war, residents of House districts whose Representatives voted against the war may not be required to serve in the military or pay taxes in support of that war.

Sorry to be the party pooper, but about 98 percent of what’s been proposed here could be — and should be — accomplished well short of a constitutional amendment. While I’m politically liberal, when it comes to the Constitution I’m extremely conservative. I believe amendments should be used to fix genuine defects, not advance any sort of partisan agenda. I used to be appalled by the fact that the GOP kept putting forward amendments based on a cynical belief that they could score political points without worrying about anything actually getting passed (see Federal Marriage Amendment). Now that the flag-burning amendment may pass, I’m starting to wonder if they may actually believe their own bullshit, which would be even scarier.

All that being said, I think the provision banning non-native born Americans from being president is a ridiculous anachronism, and should be amended, not for any partisan reasons, but because it fundamentally contradicts the notion of America as a nation of immigrants.

I know I’m late to the party, but I have to go with Smiley, despite the plethora of great suggestions. An explicit right to privacy would ensure our civil liberties and prevent illegal takings and related transfers from one private party to another private party. (one would hope).